Thread: Bерите в демократию? / Do you believe in Democracy?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Democracy doesn't automatically provide personal freedoms, etc. Democracy in its classic definition only declares that all people can participate in forming of the national policy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not say that there must be any personal freedoms except that everyone can elect and be elected.
All other 'implied' meanings are attributed to democracy by illiterate politicians and their even more illiterate followers.

and it's enough to have formed humanistic socially oriented national policy if that's what the majority wants and what the politicians are able to provide
under other types of political system what the majority wants isn't taken into consideration

Originally Posted by Ramil

Simply because people prefer to emigrate to more prosperous countries than their own and nobody wishes to emigrate to less wealthy countries. And don't even try to give all credit for the well-being of 'the West' to the fact they have seemingly 'democratic' political systems. There are other democracies as well (Pakistan, Lebannon, Mexico... lol even Greece - the most 'prosperous' country in the EU) and they're not going to be any wealthier than they are now in the nearest future. Economic well-being of the country has nothing to do with democracy.

and i don't, in my post i didn't conditioned one by the other i just combined them, clearly if there weren't any undemocratic countries as wealthy as the Western or wealthier yet my argument about emigration from the West wouldn't make sense

Originally Posted by LXNDR

and it's enough to have formed humanistic socially oriented national policy if that's what the majority wants and what the politicians are able to provide under other types of political system what the majority wants isn't taken into consideration

Unfortunately, taking many 'democratic' countries as an example I see that this is usually not enough to form 'humanistic socially oriented national policy'. Nearly every country in the world is a democracy now, but where do we see 'humanistic and socially oriented national policy'? Only in a select few (the most wealthy ones).
Let's then take Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabya - the absolute monarchies. In many ways, these 'dictatorships' provide better and more humanistic national policies than their democratic counterparts.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Unfortunately, taking many 'democratic' countries as an example I see that this is usually not enough to form 'humanistic socially oriented national policy'. Nearly every country in the world is a democracy now, but where do we see 'humanistic and socially oriented national policy'? Only in a select few (the most wealthy ones).
Let's then take Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabya - the absolute monarchies. In many ways, these 'dictatorships' provide better and more humanistic national policies than their democratic counterparts.

I'd be interested to hear how you've rated Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as being in possession of humanistic national policies. I am not being facetious; I'm very curious to hear the details of your assessment. The principles of monarchy have been examined many times in literature, of which dissertations my favorite is Machiavelli's; I've not read one that does not dismiss the general populace, PARTICULARLY the poorer sections of these populae (commonly called "peasants" in these older texts), as being little more than a movable, pliable, and penultimately enslaved resource among many on the chess-board of the Monarch. How the position of this Monarch could be swayed, autonomously or by outside forces, to represent support of the "humanistic" and "social" segments of societal thought, I fail to understand.